National impact from New York marriage law: experts

[Legbiter]

Since gays will fuck everything at least once I fail to understand Marty's anxiety. Even when you're old and hideous, you'll still be able to attract the odd desperado on a fairly regular basis. Sure, it'll be on a strict pump & dump basis, so in that regard you'll be like women who re-enter the meat market at 40, and quickly find out that it's not enough to just stand there and that they may in fact have to settle up by 20 years or so.

[Razgovory]

(I don't weigh that much, but the Ostmensch is taller than me somehow, and I think the BMI is roughly the same.)

Gays are weird about weight.  My brother is gay and he's rail thin.

[Valmy]

Why are so many gays so skinny? It's unnatural. 

They are not particularly skinny where I come from.

[Ideologue]

... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.

Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.

Automation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work.  99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger.  What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?

I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is.  While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.

I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched.  But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.

Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself.  All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate.  We are not a race of scientists and artists.

The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor.  You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.

They are not particularly skinny where I come from.

Texans = fat.

[Ideologue]

(I don't weigh that much, but the Ostmensch is taller than me somehow, and I think the BMI is roughly the same.)

Gays are weird about weight.  My brother is gay and he's rail thin.

True, but I've always had similar aversion to gaining weight, and also heavy sexual partners (well, long-term sexual partners, I've never much cared about what random ones look like).  Vanity and taste play into it, but I expect the main reason is because my mom was 1)fat and 2)died at 50 because she was fat.

I want to die at 50 because I calculated the trajectory over the Grand Canyon wrong, not because I'm a physical wreck.

[Neil]

The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor.  You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.

Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.

[Eddie Teach]

Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.

Modern Europe seems perfectly capable of reducing population without killing off a bunch of people. Well, not counting fetuses that is.

[Martinus]

Automation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work.  99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger.  What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?

I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is.  While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.

I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched.  But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.

Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself.  All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate.  We are not a race of scientists and artists.

The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor.  You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.

Yeah, this. It's often funny too that people who hold a view that the automation is always a good thing often also have quite strict views on people living off the welfare. The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.

Either you work from a principle of full employment (which means less efficient system because you are trying to pay fallible humans a wage that is higher than the cost of having some simple, menial task done by a robot) or you have to allow that a growing portion of the populace will be jobless and part of the wealth generated by the working few will have to be shared with those poor dupes.

[Martinus]

Given that a massive human dieback is the only moral option availible to us, I don't see a problem with continuing with a capitalist system.

Modern Europe seems perfectly capable of reducing population without killing off a bunch of people. Well, not counting fetuses that is.

Fetuses are not people.

Incidentally, you would be surprised that abortion laws are more strict (often much more strict) in most European countries than in the USA. I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws? Perhaps because we do not have that many lunatics.

Also, I may be wrong on that one, but I wouldn't be surprised if abortion rates in the EU were actually lower than those in the US.

[katmai]

Incidentally, you would be surprised that abortion laws are more strict (often much more strict) in most European countries than in the USA. I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws? Perhaps because we do not have that many lunatics.

You make up for it in quality.

[Eddie Teach]

I wonder why you hold a view that Europe has more liberal abortion laws?

I wonder why you hold a view that I hold such a view. /grumbler

But seriously, that assumption is not present in my post. The point of mentioning "Europe" was that you have birth rates below replacement levels. The US doesn't, yet.

[Admiral Yi]

The fact is, in a purely capitalist economy, where you are not getting paid money "for sitting on your ass and collecting a welfare check" (an anathema to many), you end up creating an unemployable, poor underclass, which is a sure recipe for a revolution.

That's an interesting fact.

[garbon]

Meanwhile New Jersey strides in petulant.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/26/2011-06-26_gay_marriage_passed_in_new_york_new_jersey_gov_chris_christie_says_he_wouldnt_si.html

Gay marriage passed in New York: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he wouldn't sign similar bill

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may think he's a "huggable" guy, but he's got no love for gay marriage.

Christie appeared on NBC News' "Meet the Press" Sunday, where he talked about U.S. debt, abortion, the 2012 election and fellow Republican Michele Bachmann.

He also dissed New York's new gay marriage bill, telling host David Gregory that his state will stick with civil unions.

"I am not a fan of same-sex marriage," Christie said. "It's not something that I support.

"I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view.

"And - and that'll be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill like the one that was [passed] in New York."

Later in the show, Gregory asked Christie about the governor's rough-around-the-edges public image.

"I'm huggable and lovable, David. I am not abrasive at all," Christie said with a smirk. "I - listen, I'm honest. And I wish we had more of it in politics."

[Valmy]

Texans = fat.

Mississippi
Tennessee
Louisiania
Kentucky
West Virginia
Arkansas
Alabama
Georgia
Texas
North Carolina

The ten fattest places in the fattest country in the world!

[Valmy]

They have Civil Unions which is better than most states.  Glad Christie at least plans on leaving them alone.